About Me

Originally a geologist by training, I now work as a museum professional. My passion is old photographs, the photographers who took them, the equipment and technologies they used, the people and scenes in the photos, and the stories behind them.

Thursday, 13 June 2013

The Sepia Saturday image prompt this week shows a cased daguerreotype of a young Texan woman, judging by the clothing and hairstyle probably taken in the 1850s or early 1860s. My contribution is not a daguerreotype, or the superficially similar and slightly later ambrotype, but it does have a superficial resemblance to both formats.

This tiny gem tintype (aka ferrotype) is mounted within a gold-coloured foil or pinchbeck preserver (aka matte), which is then attached with two small lugs to a carte de visite mount (58 x 97mm), itself pre-printed with an ornate oval frame. It was one of 47 cartes de visites in an album which I purchased a few years ago, portraits from New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario and Darlington (England). The pinchbeck preserver appears to be an imitation of those used for cased daguerreotypes and ambrotypes prevalent in the 1840s and 1850s, and still present in the 1860s, along with the carte de visite.

Detail of gem tintype and preserver

These foil-edged, card-mounted gem tintypes are not uncommon, but the subject of this diminutive image is rather nice - a clear image of a young woman with spectacles, ringlets and slightly rouged cheeks. Her hair is combed flat with a central parting and hangs in ringlets, almost entirely covering her ears, the fashion suggesting it may have been taken in the early to mid-1860s. The preserver measures 19.5 x 26mm, implying that the tintype is the standard ¾" x 1" gem format, although the oval-shaped portion of it visible is only 15.5 x 21mm.

The reverse of the card mount shows the two lugs which have been pushed through slots cut in the card and folded over towards each other to secure the portrait. Printed on the back are the following details about the photographer and process used:

This deceptively simple fragment of print provides a clue to the origin of the gem tintype format, which was to survive for many decades and undergo several reincarnations. George W. Godfrey was a moderately successful photographer who operated the Sunbeam Studio in East Main Street, Rochester from the early 1860s until his death around 1889, but it is the name Wing which resonates. In the words of renowned photographic researcher and collector Mike Kessler, "after Simon Wing, photography was never quite the same."

The tintype was invented in France in 1853 and became enormously popular in a very short space of time in the United States, being cheap and simple to produce. In the late 1840s and early to mid-1850s, Albert S. Southworth of Boston and others had designed and patented a number of daguerreotype cameras which, using a combination of several lenses and a moving plateholder back, could produce multiple images on a single photographic plate. Simon Wing of Waterville, Maine and Marcus Ormsby of Boston purchased Southworth's patents and applied the technology to the then new wet collodion process used to produce ambrotypes and tintypes.

In June 1862 Wing patented his own "multiplying camera" to take up to 72 tiny images on a thin metal plate, which were then cut up into separate "gems," thus reducing the cost per portrait considerably.

The gem portraits could be mounted behind preservers on cartes de visite, also designed by Wing, making them seem larger than they actually were, and in a style somewhat reminiscent of cased daguerreotypes and ambrotypes.

A popular alternative was to insert them into slots in a miniature album designed specifically for the format. The gem tintype album of Henry Hersey Hinckley Jr. (b. 1853) of Massachusetts, shown above (from the author's collection), includes portraits taken as early as c.1861-1862, although the compilation may have taken place at a later date.

Wing and other manufacturers made many versions of the "Gem" wet-plate cameras. Some, such as the one pictured above by an unknown U.S. maker, could be converted into a four-lens arrangement for taking carte-de-visite-sized portraits.

Several similarly mounted gem tintype portraits from the Sunbeam Gallery have been found on the web, with a variety of printed frames demonstrating that Godfrey used this particular format for some time. Similar to the manner in which Beard and Talbot had managed their rights to the daguerreotype and calotype patents in the United Kingdom, Wing sold cameras, photographic materials and "franchise" licences to a large network of studio operators, and assiduously pursued through the courts those whom he regarded as infringing his patents.

These two gem portraits by E. Parker of Brockport have almost identical text on the reverse, indicating that they have been taken using "Wing's Patent Multiplying Camera" and providing further evidence of the franchises already put in place by then. A pencilled inscription on the back of the older man's portrait gives a useful date of February 1864. Kessler (1994) describes the arrangements thus:

When a photographer bought a Wing camera, he also bought a territory for a number of miles around. No other Wing cameras would be sold in the area for as long as the purchaser remained in business. If the photographer couldn't afford to buy the package outright, Simon would set him up with a pay-as-you-go program, with a percentage of the profits to be returned to the company until the debt was paid off.

This gem tintype in a very similar style was produced at roughly the same time at "Maynard & Nelson's Picture Gallery, over the P.O. Milford," almost certainly with one of Wing's competitors' cameras, and most likely a target for the never-ending series of prosecutions.

By mid- to late 1864, Godfrey was already trying out alternative, simpler methods of mounting the gem tintypes, even though they were still being taken with his Wing camera. This example of a Union soldier's portrait in uniform at the Sunbeam Gallery in Rochester is mounted cartouche-style behind, rather than on top of, an embossed card. It is particularly useful because the subject has been identified from a pencilled annotation, and a revenue stamp is affixed of the back, thus making it possible to infer a fairly accurate date.

Malone enlisted at Rochester on 4 September 1863 and was killed at Blicks Station, Virginia on 19 August 1864. The blue revenue stamp, cancelled with a single stroke with a black pen, signified that a 2c Civil War federal tax, imposed on photographs costing 25c or less from 30 June 1864 until 1 August 1866, had been paid. While the portrait was most likely taken between the time of his enlistment and his company's deployment to Virginia in late April 1864 (Phisterer, 1912), it must only have been mounted after the tax had come into effect (Harrell-Sesniak, 2012).

George Godfrey continued to produce tintypes from the Sunbeam Gallery for a few years, although embossed and printed cartouche-style card mounts appear to have rapidly replaced those attached with foil preservers. The portraits of President Abraham Lincoln and his wife Mary Todd Lincoln shown above are typical examples and were probably produced in large quantities in 1865 after Lincoln's assassination.

Although the popularity of gem tintypes started to decline somewhat after the end of the Civil War, they were still produced in significant numbers throughout the 1870s and 1880s, and remained the format of choice for many travelling photographers. Simon Wing's cameras remained fundamentally the same until the late 1880s, when he and his son Harvey introduced a number of new designs, including the Ajax Multiplying Camera (c.1900) and the Wing Prototype Multiplying Box Camera (above) patented in 1914. Although only two of Harvey Wing's prototypes were ever produced, it is remarkable that the inherent concepts of these multiplying cameras were revived once again for the Polyfoto camera twenty years later, which I wrote about here on Photo-Sleuth three weeks ago.

I'm very grateful to The Spira Collection, Mike Kessler, Rob Niederman, Matthew R. Isenburg (via Marcel Safier), George Eastman House, Mike Rosebery, the Library of Congress, PhotoTree.com, Mike Medhurst and Cowan Auctions for the very useful scans of and information provided about items in their collections.

Update

By kind courtesy of the author, the late Mike Kessler, I am now able to offer you a PDF of the Summer/Fall 1994 issue of the Photographist containing the excellent article about Simon Wing as a direct download (click on the image above). Many thanks to Rob Niederman for facilitating this. It's an important resource to have available online.

Phisterer, Frederick (1912) 14th Artillery Regiment, Civil War, in New York in the War of the Rebellion, 3rd ed., Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, courtesy of the New York State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center, NYS Division of Military and Naval Affairs (2008).

That's a difficult question to answer, Wendy. I go through phases, when certain formats or subjects or places of origin appeal to me, and I suppose I like to have a representative selection of formats, although budget plays a significant role in my choices. This particular album was from the US, found on eBay, but I rarely buy from there any more as the postage has become so expensive ... and it's very slow.

I'm not buying much at the moment, although I'm always on the lookout for studio portrait photos by Derbyshire Photographers. Despite my having compiled my index to Derbyshire photographers for over a decade, I still occasionally come across one completely new to me.

All New To Me Too!What A Fine Post (as ever!)I do admire you work here! Several Interesting side-issues.....The idea of commerce & franchise came early to photography (hardly surprising given to cost of new technology & research).....Also seems like a step towards the magic of moving pictures.Very much cutting edge stuff:the lure of The New I guess, yet the frames hark back to framed oil paintings.....I must say the framing seems a tad garish to modern eyes....at first glance you notice the frame before the photo itself.You almost have to fight your way into inspecting the photo!

I've come across a few instances of these franchise arrangements in photohistory. The framing was a direct copy of those used for earlier photo formats which, in turn, were indeed derived from the ornate gilt frames on oil paintings. See this captivating sixteeth-plate daguerreotype from Rob from Amersfoort, which at 3.5 x 4 cm wasn't much bigger than the tintype.

There is so much to learn in this post... like 'daguerreotype' which I see here and there once in awhile. I remember those ringlets. In the early 80s I know a woman in church who wore her hair like that. She must have been a fan of the historic hairstyle.

Although I think it's a style that has probably seen many revivals, it's possible that one might be able to refine the date of this portrait even further from a knowledge of when this particular craze went in and out of fashion.

I should be making a folder to save your posts in. So much valuable information with your love of photography and photos you always uncover the most interesting things. Often I'll see something I have no idea what it is, and then I think I bet Brett knows, and I think he's already posted about it. I watched American Pickers the other night and they had an old Radio-Opticon Projector, (I man have spelled it wrong)it was interesting too!

I hadn't come across the Radioptican before, but I've enlightened myself now with your help, thank you - an early projector for postcards, similar to a magic lantern but, as I understand it, using ordinary printed postcards.

I recently saw a tiny photo album, maybe 2" x 4" wide, that held gems. Two gems per page. I desperately want it for my collection but the $275 is hard to part with, so I had to leave it behind. The gems were not mounted in the protectors, just inside the pages. It was truly lovely, bound in red. Now that you have reminded me of it I will likely start saving my nickles and dimes to try to buy it. :-)

Informative as ever, I seem to really like this format, though I'd be hard put to choose between the foil preserver or the cartouche style. I like everything that glitters... but the cartouche offers a more harmonious presentation with the photo, if a tad less flashy. One must be grateful to all of those people you were so inventive and left us a legacy which everyone can enjoy now, even on a cellphone. I wonder what they would think of it if they could see it... :D~ HUGZ

Hi Brett. Really love your post! I have been trying to research a photo I'm pretty sure is from the 1860s and is one of the old formats but it looks different. It is kind of silvered, if you know what I mean. It is really hard to see the face of the girl as it is almost in negative form, although it is not negative I think. It has that same kind of brass looking mount. I have posted it here if you are interested at all: http://greatgrandmaswickerbasket.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/the-oldest-photo-i-own.html

The perfect article for me. While visiting a friend I noticed a tintype on his bookshelf. On closer examination I was shocked to see it was the same tintype that i had of my great aunt from MS. He bought the tintype at an estate sale in Des Moines, Iowa over 35 years ago. The picture was taken about 1864 in MS. They were identical and I wondered how that was done.Now I know. However the probability of the two tintypes reuniting seems beyond calculation.. Thanks of this page.

This is more or less a standard "sixth-plate tintype," which was the most common size used for portraiture from the 1860s to the 1890s. It was made, as you might expect, by taking six images on a full plate, either using a camera with six lenses, or a camera with a moving lens or back, and then cutting the plate into into six. These were substantially larger than Gem tintypes.